castle law/doctrine question...

Active Member

So in a thread about a bear attack I was trying to be funny and made a statement about castle law, it got me to thinking since I am newer to the firearm scene... Does Oregon have this type of self defense doctrine/law?

I did some research and the waters seem pretty muddy on this topic, some say yes, some say no, I did notice however that there appears to be a petition circulating around the state to gather signatures to have it voted on to make it more clear or make it a law. anyone seen or heard anything on this? and is there anything in law in regards to this topic?

Well-Known Member

Somebody else needs to help out with this but there seemed not too long ago there was a thread here related to your question. Sorry I don't have a cite but it seeeeeems like while there is not specific ORS there was a court case where they ruled there was no duty to retreat on your property. Certainly more research is needed.

Well-Known Member

Oregon does not have a true Castle Doctrine. In Oregon, you are not immune to a civil suit for shooting someone in your house. However, we do not have a duty to retreat either. You can not shoot someone for breaking into your car. That is a property crime and there is no threat of harm to your or your family. I would say this also extends to the tool shed in your back yard. Again, no physical threat to you or your family. Now if you walk outside to see what is going on and the bad guy points a gun at you, you then have a threat that justifies the appropriate response.

Well-Known Member

but LEGALLY can you shoot someone for simply breaking into your shop, house or car? (as an example) I always thought it was only if you or your families life was in danger.

Click to expand...

You are able to use deadly force, If someone is breaking into your house or shop and you felt life danger. (aggressive / temping or intent to attacking) But not breaking into car when you are not inside.

You are not able to use deadly force, If someone broke into your house or shop, then bad person try to run away/flee the scene after you face bad person. Because clearly bad person was not aggressive or have any intention to attacking you.

Well-Known Member

I agree with Skang. You shoot them in the back as they are running away, you are going to need a lawyer quick. I know some will argue that maybe he was running for cover to hide behind when he shoots me. Try explaining that to a Portland Jury. Good luck. Shooting someone is the last thing I ever want to be forced to do. If they are running away, I will keep em in my sights, and as long as they keep running, no one will be shot and we both go on to enjoy tomorrow.

SCREW YOU SALEM!Gold Supporter

It will ALWAYS come down to three things concerning the "perpetrator"... Does he have the MEANS, does he have the INTENT, and does he have the OPPORTUNITY to inflict death or serious bodily harm on you or someone else.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, its like a 3-legged stool... take any ONE of those out of the equation and and you "won't have a leg to stand on"... so to speak. If you keep those three things in mind for a justifiable use of deadly force, you will generally "stay out of the soup" with the authorities.

Disclaimer:

I am NOT a lawyer (I have a soul), I do not play one (even on the internet), but similarly (like a lawyer) I'm not happy until you're not happy!

Member

There are specific laws in Oregon concerning the use of deadly force, and cases to explain them. There are specific laws governing the use of firearms. If you are going to use a firearm you should contact an attorney who is familiar with those laws and pay him for the information. Legal education is just as important as education on how to use the firearm effectively.

Well-Known Member

There are specific laws in Oregon concerning the use of deadly force, and cases to explain them. There are specific laws governing the use of firearms. If you are going to use a firearm you should contact an attorney who is familiar with those laws and pay him for the information. Legal education is just as important as education on how to use the firearm effectively.

SCREW YOU SALEM!Gold Supporter

There are specific laws in Oregon concerning the use of deadly force, and cases to explain them. There are specific laws governing the use of firearms. If you are going to use a firearm you should contact an attorney who is familiar with those laws and pay him for the information. Legal education is just as important as education on how to use the firearm effectively.

Click to expand...

You lie!! You cannot POSSIBLY be a lawyer and simultaneously have a soul!!

Active Member

when i got my concealed carry card the cop said......
the perp has to have a weapon(make sure it's a weapon not phone etc)
taking a martial arts stance is a threat to your life or another as superior force.
threat to take your life and you are in fear for your life(not just beat up)
doubletap...we only want to take one side of the story
make sure you dont shoot them in the back while they are retreating
if he didn't have a knife in his hand when you shot....go to kitchen and give him one....just kidding....kinda!
this is not legal advise.....take the class and cover you a..!

Active Member

I guess the real question is whether or not you wake up to a bad guy in your room, with only a few seconds (less than 3) to decide. Not everyone is fit, as some people have disabilities, such as being old, frail, or old and frail, etc. I don't expect anyone to be ready to box for their life in their own home at any given moment. Why should I expect or give a fair fight to someone who breaks into my home?

My escape route in the middle of the night? A 16 foot drop onto concrete at a 20 degree angle.
Yeah, so much for escaping.

If I wake up to a grown man in my house - and it's not Chuck Norris, Ed McMahon, or Bob Barker - I'm going to assume my life is in eminent danger.

Gold SupporterGold Supporter

Member

With regard to the use of deadly force, Oregon law is not black and white. This may be frustrating at first, but it is actually a good thing. The law largely allows for reasonable explanations/justification for the use of force or deadly force. We may not all agree on what is reasonable, but the statutes clearly outline what sorts of things are to be considered and those parameters are further clarified by case law. No two incidents will ever be exactly alike and so no "if the criminal does this, you can do this" type law would ever really work. A general rule to live by (and this is by no means an explanation in legal terms) would be this: "If every fiber of your being is telling you to shoot this person in order to save your life or that of someone else, then you will probably be OK. If you are thinking about whether or not the decision to shoot will come back to bite you, you probably have enough time, tactical advantages, or distance to do something else, or are not being presented with a sufficient enough threat to justify deadly force."

There are other threads (many of them) about this topic. However a good list of statutes to start studying (not all inclusive) would be here:

ORS 161.200 Choice of evils
ORS 161.205 Use of physical force generally.
ORS 161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person.
ORS 161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person.
ORS 161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.
ORS 161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises.
ORS 161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property.
ORS 161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizen&#8217;s arrest.
ORS 161.245 &#8220;Reasonable belief&#8221; described

Note that while ORS 161.219 explicitly states that one may shoot a residential burglar, the statute also states that the decision to use deadly force in that situation is still restricted by ORS 161.209 (which states that a "person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose"). Additionally, ORS 161.225 states that a person can only use enough force to stop a property crime (not deadly force and still using a reasonableness standard) and that the use of deadly force must be coupled with the perpetrator having some sort of harmful intent. In other words, while not required to retreat, and not required to use deadly force as a last resort, you better make sure that there are no other reasonable alternatives (which may or may not include retreating or trying other options first). The law does specifically recognize the threat posed by a residential burglar and, thus, does make it somewhat easier to articulate the potential threat posed by a residential intruder versus someone in a yard, business, car, etc. However, that threat must still be judged in light of other legal restrictions on the use of force. Remember that a grand jury, DA, or jury in a trial will make the judgement as to whether your response to a threat was reasonable. Juries may not have the same worldview that you have and so you need to stack the odds in your favor. While not legally required, many of these steps could assist in establishing reasonableness: a shouted warning, actions of the intruder (charging you or trying to jam your flatscreen through an open window), size/age/gender of intruder, your size/age/gender, your level of fear, other people that you believe are threatened, ease of escape and ability to call the police, etc.

Hope that helps. Probably still as clear as mud, but at least it is a start. The lawyer suggestion is probably a good one. If you can't afford one, you will appointed one for free only after you are charged with a crime. Just remember that people get their houses broken into and stuff gets stolen all the time. In contrast, if you exclude police shootings, there are only a handful of justifiable uses of deadly force in Oregon every year. Statistically speaking, if, on the off chance you do confront a burglar in your home, the odds are that you still won't be able to reasonably justify the use of deadly force.

Well-Known Member

A burglary of an occupied dwelling is most certainly a serious felony and carries with it an implicit threat of violence. I think that ORS 161.219-225 is crystal clear when it states that:

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by
force and violence by the trespasser. (3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, premises includes any building as
defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, premises includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

Click to expand...

The last sentence says that I also have the right to defend my toolshed on my property with force and confront the criminal. If he runs, good move for him, but if he attacks me then lethal force is justified. I can't be blamed for causing the confrontation because I have the right to defend my property. In that case the criminal is the one responsible for turning a property crime into a violent crime, not me.

Member

The last sentence says that I also have the right to defend my toolshed on my property with force and confront the criminal. If he runs, good move for him, but if he attacks me then lethal force is justified. I can't be blamed for causing the confrontation because I have the right to defend my property. In that case the criminal is the one responsible for turning a property crime into a violent crime, not me.

Click to expand...

how to you think that would playpout in a Portland court room? you maight be able to explain why you armed youself to confront a junkie trying to steal you lawnmower instead of calling the police. You would be in the right and I as a juror would try to remind them that the bad guy is the bad guy. BUT would you be willing to try your luck? And civil court is even more of a gray area.......

Gold SupporterGold Supporter

One thing to remember is the abundance of weapons you have in your house or in your shed.
Lots of deadly weapons.
Let's see,machetes,knives,BOX KNIVES (oh my),hammers,axes,screw drivers,ropes crowbars,old pipes(tubing),kitchen knives,iron,sharpening steel,pens,pencils,pans,ski poles,bats,hockey sticks,fishing poles (broken off?)....the list can go on.

So if you are in this situation,you would,should take pictures of the intruders location and all the surrounding implements he had to choose from to kill you.

Heck last week? a guy in Winslow Wa,heard an intruder and went to investigate.The guy picked up a kitchen knife,and the home owner a hammer.
Intruder went across the street to jack a truck and got himself shot.

BTW did you happen to ask the intruder if he was armed? Or maybe you should frisk him before you get your gun?
Is he an ex boxer or martial artist? History of violence? Maybe you should ask him that too.
These are things to relay to your lawyer,so he understands why you feel the need to protect yourself.
And about 99% of all crimes are either drug or alcohol related. Yeah that's who I always pick to fight.

WELCOME!

Northwest Firearms provides a place for gun owners of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho a place to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Participation is completely free and registration takes only a few moments.

About Northwest Firearms

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.